November 25, 2014, 04:06:45 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 112
886
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 09, 2013, 04:54:26 PM »
^ Do you really expect corporations to code their software to work with Linux, representing a whopping under 2% of computer users? ???

Anyways, if sigma would have had this accessory years ago it would have saved their brand an awful lot of hurt over bad AF!

Actually, considering that OSX and Linux are very similar under the hood (both are flavors of unix)...it would seem reasonable to have them develop for Linux too.

And with the fiasco that Win8 seems to be...well, there might be more people trying out Linux, not to mention, there are a lot of pro houses out there using Linux servers.

And with Mac seemingly unwilling to put out an updated mac pro....building a high end linux box is somewhat appealing.

But again, since osx and linux are so similar, I could see them porting it pretty readily.

For the time being...just run Win or OSX as a VM on your Linux box...and you have all your bases covered.

At a low level, OS X and Linux might be fairly similar, but there are a lot of subtle differences. Especially when it comes to the UI level, totally different libraries (sure, OS X does ship with an X11 server...) and frameworks. The core protocol could probably pretty easily simply be a library that's shared, but all of the GUI/UX is not just as simple as recompiling with a few macro tweaks and it'll work nicely. Especially if the OS X GUI is based on Objective-C, while I bet the Windows is either .NET, or using VisualC++ or similar.

887
Do you think Apple would endorse such a product?

Apple has accepted Mono applications to the App Store, which is as close to "endorsed" as you can get.

I'd just like to add some perspective to this thread if I may — I'm a software developer for Mac by trade (photography is a hobby) so hopefully I can be useful.

Mono is no less "native" than 90% of Mac products out there. A lot of people think "Native" means "Written in Objective-C against the Cocoa framework", but that's just one of the many tools available to make applications for Mac OS — it just happens to be the one Apple provides. However, many of the applications people on this forum will use day-to-day aren't written using these technologies, for example:

- Microsoft Office
- Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom, etc
- To be honest, pretty much everything out of Adobe ever

Having a common codebase when your application runs on multiple platforms is the best way of doing things, not just because of cost — if you have multiple codebases for multiple platforms, you can guarantee that the core functionality of each version will be slightly different, and you have to spend a lot of time making sure the separate implementations are compatible with each other as well as weeding out more bugs, etc etc.

However, since Mac OS, Windows, and other platforms have very different looking UIs, this normally leads to a sub-optimal product UI-wise, since to make something work on everything, it ends up being a mashed-up compromise. To counter this, products will often have a common "core" while implementing the UI separately for each platform. It is absolutely possible to make an application in Mono that doesn't look "ported", but it takes more effort than using a UI that works on all platforms. And, looking at the software in question, the UI is so simple that it doesn't need extra work.

Edit: To put things in perspective, Adobe products use a common UI layer on both of their platforms. They went full-in and designed their own UI toolkit that works fairly well on both platforms, but can be frustrating to use on a Mac since it doesn't entirely conform with standard Mac behaviours.

Simply put, if this application isn't "native", neither is Office, Photoshop or Lightroom. And, well, they're all damn fine products. Furthermore, I bet if they'd included Mono inside the application package rather than requiring it be installed separately, nobody would have even noticed that this application wasn't "native".

As for Mono being bloated, well, the install size of the runtime is around 300MB. If you look at the size of Apple's libraries you'll find they're a lot larger than that, it's just that they come with the operating system so you don't have to download it.

Well said. I'm trying to think of what I could add to this, but I can't really. Except to say that to me, it's pretty obvious that the FoCal guys are NOT UI/UX designers. Which is fine by me, as all that math and algorithms is really the core of what makes it a great product, although I could wish they'd find someone who can help massage the UI into something a bit nicer looking...

888
Sweet, thanks all. I definitely didn't switch it on purpose. I took a picture of some Thai kids and showed them the result. One got all excited and started pressing buttons. Perhaps that's what happened.

Any who, after reading about it, it actually seems handy.

Do you guys use the mirror lock up feature often?? I enjoy night photography and it seems useful.

For night photography where you are generally using exposures significantly longer than 1/focal length guide, then mirror movement can actually cause a bit of unwanted vibration which can affect the final output, especially if you are going to be doing a large print.

889
I think I understand what the op means. It means we paid 100 bucks for a shoddy/lazy software port.

It's always best to have code run natively- it will just be a better, smoother app, period. Witt that said, having two distinct code bases is a pain in the arse for devs. Someone's going to get the short end of the stick here, and sadly it's us Mac folk.

However to the op- chances are most n the forum are only tech guys as far as camera goes so eh don't really have a clue to what the negatives could be. So in this forum, the argument is a wash, unfortunately.

Lazy port? So you are paying only for the port not the developing of the algorithms to make it work? And how you know it is lazy? How many hours took him?

"Lazy" all depends if the dev went for the easiest option at the expense of how well the app runs in the mac environment. Im not saying either or, thats on them- but native will ALWAYS be better, regardless of any circumstances.

Personally, Im always curious about visual related software not appearing on macs first- osx is still the lead content creation platform for most creatives. Photography, i would think, falls under that realm.

In recent years a lot of the advantages are falling by the wayside or being equalized. First, basically all Adobe software runs on Windows as well. Second, Final Cut X cause huge disruptions for many people, and they either have not upgraded, or had needed features that hadn't yet been implemented (or weren't going to be), and so they either stuck with the previous version, or jumped ship to Avid which can run on Windows. Third, the Mac Pro's have gone to a somewhat longer refresh cycle, while the big OEMs which you can get machines certified for certain applications have kept up with the new hardware which gives drastically more processing power for similar price, or better value for similar power at generally lower prices. Last, especially with Windows 7 and beyond, many of the big issues such as font handling and rendering are catching up with Apple in many ways, and so Mac no longer has the bigger on-screen rendering advantages that they used to.

A lot of people (from what I've heard) has said Apple seems to be focusing on their iOS devices and the AppStore/iTunes, and paying less and less attention to the Pro users that do serious content creation. After all, it may be high margin, but there are a LOT more users for iOS devices out there and I'm sure they have good margins there despite it being the consumer space, rather than the pro space.

890
Lighting / Re: The Flash Bracket? Do they really matter anymore?
« on: January 09, 2013, 11:45:57 AM »
How can anybody laugh at a man with the guts to wear (only!) gold y fronts?

Who said I'm laughing? It's Burning Man, that's just considered average. However, hauling around that whole getup? And have you seen some of the photos he has produced with that? Wow!

891
Looking at the latest blog posting about the latest release of FoCal beta for Mac OS X, it clearly states that it requires the Mono framework.

And why is it crap that it needs additional libraries/runtime? Most other applications will either use ones that ship with OS X, or have them bundled alongside as part of the installation file, just you don't see them. Mono is a bit larger than most of those, true, but it's much the same.

892
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 11:19:26 PM »
Forgive my ignorance, but from the description of this USB Dock, I have no idea what this product is, or how it is used.  Does it mount onto a lens or something?

Yes, it mounts onto the bayonet mount of the lens, and allows communication between a computer and the lens for things like firmware updates, AF tweaks, setting the focus limiter limits, and things like that.

893
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« on: January 08, 2013, 08:08:45 PM »
The site freezes up when I try to upload pictures. I used 2 jpegs, <4 MB total. Any ideas?
Thanks

Is the total size of the 2 JPGs < 4 MegaBytes (so 4,194,304 bytes)? If so, how fast is your upstream? If it's something like 512 Kbit/sec it'll take some time to upload those. You might have to wait a couple of minutes to upload.

That's right, the total size is less than 4 MB. I have a high-speed connection, so I doubt if the upload speed is the problem. Is Mozilla compatible? Do you guys use something else?
Thanks!

Just about everything should be fine, I've always used FireFox, no problems.

894
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 07:19:50 PM »
^ Do you really expect corporations to code their software to work with Linux, representing a whopping under 2% of computer users? ???

Anyways, if sigma would have had this accessory years ago it would have saved their brand an awful lot of hurt over bad AF!

Well, yes. They could easily have used a cross platform library for writing the application and then it would have worked everywhere. I am tired of companies offering software for Windows and Mac OS alone. It smacks of laziness.

it smacks of good business sense, you don't waste money and stay in business.

I think what JohnnyWashngo is trying to say is, it likely could have been done in a fully cross-platform for little to no additional cost (money/personal/etc). Not sure if he's completely correct or not, but it very well may be correct since the only cross-platform stuff I've developed has been Java, and that has it's own quirks and issues.

If the cost had actually be very minimal, it might very well have been nice to release it. However, I'm sure some enterprising person will sniff the USB packets and reverse engineer the protocol. Then all of us linux geeks (well, ok, I use Windows for Lightroom. I'm sorry :( ) can put together our own application as we will.

Which Linux distribution, and what about Android for tablets?

That's the great thing of once the protocol is completely reverse engineered, it can be implemented just about anywhere on almost anything that has a USB Host. I wouldn't be surprised if Sigma releases an Android/iOS app for it either, it just makes too much sense so that you can make adjustments in the field easily if you need to.

895
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 05:58:22 PM »
^ Do you really expect corporations to code their software to work with Linux, representing a whopping under 2% of computer users? ???

Anyways, if sigma would have had this accessory years ago it would have saved their brand an awful lot of hurt over bad AF!

Well, yes. They could easily have used a cross platform library for writing the application and then it would have worked everywhere. I am tired of companies offering software for Windows and Mac OS alone. It smacks of laziness.

it smacks of good business sense, you don't waste money and stay in business.

I think what JohnnyWashngo is trying to say is, it likely could have been done in a fully cross-platform for little to no additional cost (money/personal/etc). Not sure if he's completely correct or not, but it very well may be correct since the only cross-platform stuff I've developed has been Java, and that has it's own quirks and issues.

If the cost had actually be very minimal, it might very well have been nice to release it. However, I'm sure some enterprising person will sniff the USB packets and reverse engineer the protocol. Then all of us linux geeks (well, ok, I use Windows for Lightroom. I'm sorry :( ) can put together our own application as we will.

896
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
« on: January 08, 2013, 05:18:35 PM »
The site freezes up when I try to upload pictures. I used 2 jpegs, <4 MB total. Any ideas?
Thanks

Is the total size of the 2 JPGs < 4 MegaBytes (so 4,194,304 bytes)? If so, how fast is your upstream? If it's something like 512 Kbit/sec it'll take some time to upload those. You might have to wait a couple of minutes to upload.

897
Lighting / Re: The Flash Bracket? Do they really matter anymore?
« on: January 08, 2013, 04:16:20 PM »
The trouble with the E-TTL cord is that you end up needing a third hand to hold the flash.

Do you?



That looks like a 5D3 with a st-e3-rt and two 600rt flash units.

Or you could be like this guy.


898
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 03:02:26 PM »
They might. And then prevent 3rd parties like FoCal from accessing those like what they did for the 5d3. And no, I'm not going to stop grumbling about that.

Maybe it does make you feel better there's full FoCal support for the 6d again, Canon might have heard your grumbling!

Now if they fix it for the 5d3 for the supposedly forthcoming firmware update, I'll stop grumbling. If they actually do it, I'll sing a few praises, if not, I'll blast them with some more email communication asking them to stop being 'tards. In nicer words though.

899
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Launches the Sigma USB DOCK
« on: January 08, 2013, 01:36:56 PM »
Focus setting

Contemporary, Art and Sports • Updating Lens Firmware It is possible to update the lens firmware via the internet. • Focus Setting Multiple focus setting options are available: 4 categories for fixed focal length lenses, and 16 categories (4 options for focal length) x (4 options for shooting distance) for zoom lenses.

For Sports line • AF Speed Adjustment There are 3 AF speed modes. • Focus Limiter Adjustment Offering customization for the driving range of auto focus enables a photographer to exactly reflect the personal preference. • OS Setting There are 3 OS (Optical Stabilizer) adjustment modes.

I have to say I'm impressed - lenses have reached the digital age at last, it'll be interesting to see if Canon follows and adds more customization options for their lenses directly through the eos cameras.

They might. And then prevent 3rd parties like FoCal from accessing those like what they did for the 5d3. And no, I'm not going to stop grumbling about that.

900
This lens has always been very good since its first incarnation. This model is the third, so I expect it to perform on a very high level.

Agreed, I got the original with my XSi instead of the kit lens, and always enjoyed it. Wished they had it with OS back when I got it, but if this new version is any better, it's a great value for a crop camera.

Pages: 1 ... 58 59 [60] 61 62 ... 112